Terms & Conditions

[mattk]

What do you do when you have one family that has to live in 2 properties, e.g. genuine medical need until a permanent solution is found? This could be regardless of the size of family.

I appreciate that 7(6)(c) legislates for large families that have to be accommodated in 2 properties because of their size, and that in some cases R(H)5/09 allows for 2 properties to be classed as 1 dwelling, but does in effect R(H)5/09 make 7(6)(c) all but redundant? Or some physical proximity matter in terms of how close the 2 properties are to each other??

I thought I could remember some other case law CH3933/06(?) which spoke about the properties being contiguous…so is this the deciding factor?

Any thoughts appreciated.

[Anonymous]

I believe that CH/3933/2006 and R(H) 5/09 are a matched pair – the earlier case was the same claimant’s CTB appeal. The discussion of “dwelling” in that case is very much in the CTB context and I wouldn’t attach too much significance to it for HB purposes.

For authority on two physically separate non-contiguous properties being used as a single dwelling, see the JSA case of Miah, where the second hoiuse was three doors along the street from the first one.

Is this the case that Ali Garton mentioned in January where the two houses are in completely different areas of Bristol about three miles apart? If so, I think it will be difficult for the family to occupy them in such a way that they are in practice a single home – and I agree with you that to allow the Miah approach willy-nilly does somewhat make a mockery of Reg 7(6).

[mattk]

Thanks Peter as always. This is another case, both as a result of inventive housing solutions by our Housing Department. I think this one is closer, but streets if not wards apart…..

Matt

[Kevin D]

[b:1b981b6c0e]R(SB) 30/83[/b:1b981b6c0e] may also be helpful in determining whether two non-adjacent dwellings can be a single dwelling for benefit purposes.

[Author]

Posts